|
Just a reminder -- FA doesn't mean the article is frozen in time. There were many major details missing before/during FAC, and unfortunately there still remain many others. e.g.still no mention of Grant marching with Lee at Vera Cruz during the Mexican War, a topic that still needs its own subsection in accord with coverage by the scholarship. There's also no mention of how Grant got his name, no mention of his crippling hip injury, little mention of his youthful and exceptional experiences with horses. Vicksburg, one of the most important campaigns, doesn't mention Grant's different HQ's as does coverage of other battles, nor the pressing situation of fleeing blacks, or his attempt to bypass the batteries by digging a canal, while the G.O.#11 topic remains stuck at the end of Shiloh section, a battle that occurred seven months previous, for openers. The article needs to proportionately reflect the scholarship, while FA's should cover all major topics and details, with at least a summary mention, if not more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- All this has been discussed previously, we do not agree that these proposals are improvements. It's very IDHT of you to keep saying the same things over and over again, where we have to reiterate the prior responses. Please review the talk page history for the multiple editors' responses to each one of these points in keeping them out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers:, would you agree to submit this dispute to mediation? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mentioning Grant put Chaplain John Eaton of the 27th Ohio Infantry in charge of the African American refugees on November 13, 1862 is signifigant enough to add and will increase the neutrality of the article...This in my opinion needs to go into the Shiloh section. This event took place prior to Grant's General Orders No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Coemgenus: Thanks for asking beforehand. I fear that if (all of?) these issues went to dispute resolution all we would be doing is moving everything from here to there which would undoubtingly result in the same long drawn out arguing, while we all wait for someone not familiar with Grant to make decisions for us. The above was a friendly reminder. I am in no particular hurry, and, when room permits, hopefully we can at least mention some of the basic details that are missing in this FA. Hopefully you are not intending to stonewall all suggestions like one editor apparently wishes to do. That by itself would only compound matters and raise ownership issues, among others no doubt. My apologies to you and Cm' for dragging the G.O. issue out, but as I'm hoping you realize, this is a controversial and sensitive issue that imo deserves to be presented with at least a mention of the most basic and important facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
editbreak4
@Alanscottwalker: "we do not agree..."? I have lost count of how many times you have misrepresented not only my discussion but others' as well. Many items have been included because I had to repeat some points and introduce new facts. Is it now your intention to keep the article the same for all time?
Please be reminded:
- Grant's naming While Cm' agreed that Grant's naming is no minor detail he only expressed concern becuase he was not clear on some facts, thinking that Grant's mother was soley responsible for Grant's naming. Coemgenus and yourself offered no opinion. "We?"
- Association with Lee Here Cm' agrees that we should mention Grant's association with Lee, while Coemgenus maintains I think it's enough already, but I could see maybe a sentence or two more.... No one objected to this including yourself "We"?
- Private schools Here Cm' is open to improving the article and while not fully agreeing does not disagree. While Coemgenus suggests maybe a brief mention of the topic you offer no opinion. "We"?
- Vicksburg. No one has said anything either way about mentioning Grant's HQ's as does coverage of other less important battles, or Grant's canal, while Cm' feels the issue of fleeing blacks should be included in the article. You're the only one who feels the G.O. should be covered in the Shiloh section regardless of the fact that this battle occurred seven months before the order was issued. "We"?
- Subsection for Mexican-American War. Coemgenus objected because he felt that the scholarship did not cover the topic enough to warrant a separate subsection for it. After I pointed out that McFeely, Smith, Simpson and others devoted an entire chapter to this topic, and that Grant mentioned the Mexican War more than 50 times in his memoirs there was (typically) no further comment forthcoming, while you offered no opinion. No one else objected to putting the topic in its own subsection. "We"?
I could go on, e.g.with your absurd claim that I was "skewing the text" simply because I think the G.O. topic should be covered in the Vicksburg section, etc. Apparently you're too disgruntled to maintain objectivity. Please try to maintain control of your emotions and make more of an attempt to participate in these discussions in an honest capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers...please let me clarify myself. In my view controversial subjects, such as General Orders No. 11, should be addressed first in the article...Grant's name is important but I don't think there is any controversy historically behind his name...I believe neutrality of the article is important...The above suggestions have merit but is there a neccessity of adding these subjects to the article? As stated before I am respectful of editor consensus...Also making sure that references match the content of the article is important. I have had to make a few fixes in the Shiloh section. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers: You were skewing the text, and others agree with me, that's not a matter of emotion, that's just the way it is. Your POV pushing that all this is important has never gotten the support of others; that's not emotion, that is just the way it is. Coemgenus had to fight with you every step of the way because you wanted to expand details others see as nugatory. Placing GO 11 at the top of the Vickburg section is just more of your skewing the text to give it undue weight. The other things are not important, or are already covered in sufficient detail. (to the extent that CMguy want's to add a name of a commander to the sentence on African Americans that's fine - as it is just a name.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please. Simply placing the G.O. topic in the section where it took place is not skewing the text. You have reached the hight of irrationality here. Including an important fact, whether you agree with its inclusion or not, is not POV pushing. I have just outlined above the numerous instances of where your account is less than honest. You can not refute a single item here i.e.all a matter of record now. Please stop with this disgruntled rant and misrepresentation of my discussion and intentions and again, make the effort to participate honestly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- You again misrepresent things. I said your contention that all this is important is POV pushing, and it is. Simply with respect to Shilo, you have never addressed my refutation that that section does not just cover the battle of Shilo, and never has. That you have been skewing the text on GO11 is plain to see for several of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. Expressing an opinion on a talk page about a fact being important is not POV pushing. POV pushing involves adding cherry picked items to the article while attempting to leave out other important facts. This has never happened. The talk page is where editors come to express opinions about what is and is not important, just like you have done. Helloooo? Once again, please stop with your chronic misrepresentation of other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if your sorry. I'll accept that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- A touch of levity? There's hope for you after all. In any case, while the Shiloh section may touch on things other than the actual battle so does the Vicksburg section, so if we are going to include the G.O. topic it should be in the section that covers the events that occurred during the issuance of Grant's order. The Vicksburg campaign began in Dec.1862. The G.O. was issued in Dec.1862, from Grant's HQ at Vicksburg. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree, we should not start the Vicksburg section with GO11, it is fine where it is just before it and in sensible chronology, as starting the Vickburg section with GO11 would be to give it undue weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Alan here. This GO11 section already takes up too much of the article, which is what I've said from the beginning. We've agreed to expand it a bit and, although I think it was better before, I'm happy to leave it as it is, where it is, as it's already been expanded. But no more. I'm neutral on Cmguy's addition, but it's short and not a big deal. If the rest of you want to leave it, again, that's fine with me, although I think it doesn't add value to the article. But let's put an end to this over-long waste of everyone's time. I'd like to get back to writing articles, myself. @Gwillhickers: are you prepared to accept this version of the article, or must we move on to mediation? I couldn't tell from your earlier answer whether you'd accept that option or not. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Cmguy777:, how many paragraphs or pages does Simon devote to the G.O. topic? I suspect there are others besides Simpson, Simon and Ash, who don't treat the topic as some passing detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cm', Flood, 2005, starting at page 143 devotes more than four pages to the overall topic of speculators, cotton and the general orders. Apparently this topic has more wight than some had assumed. I'll continue searching so we can get a better idea of how much weight the scholarship actually gives this topic in reality. We now have at least four RS's that give (much) more than token coverage to this topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Coemgenus:, the topic is only covered with a short paragraph to begin with, and you're saying that too much weight is being given. Yes, you're willing to let the compromose version stand, as am I at this juncture, but out of curiosity, what would you have removed? Simpson's perspective? Grant's apology? It would be nice if you could address matters by acknowledging the historical aspects/implications, rather than objecting with generic statements, e.g. too much weight. Doing so will give context to your position of too much weight. Your contention by itself is not very convincing imo, considering the magnitude and the implications i.e.large amounts of gold falling into rebel hands, prolonging the war at the expense of soldier's lives, and what Grant was dealing with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, I am tempted to bring the topic to mediation, but I believe I have a better idea. Why don't we simply call in a few other involved and/or knowledgeable editors and ask them if including the statement about the War Dept's warning to Grant gives the topic too much weight? This way we are not asking someone not familiar with Grant and/or the Civil War to make decisions for us. If this is acceptable, I would suggest that we simply present the current G.O. version and simply ask if the additional statement transforms the passage into something with too much weight. I would further suggest that we sit back and let them make their statements, for or against, and then we can move on that much sooner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you're happy to let the compromise version stand, why are we still taking about it. Case closed, isn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c)The argument of counting a relatively few pages in biographies in comparison to the whole book was rejected previously by multiple editors, yet you make it again, here, as if that never occurred. You say you accept the text on CO11 and then you demand Coemgenus discuss it more. Coemgnus has been more than forthcoming on what to cut, yet to you, it's like it never happened. Things such as these is what makes Coemgenus desire for mediation all the more prudent. (On a side note, as has been said before, Grant's apologizing belongs in the 1868 election section, where it is covered already long before you started expanding the GO11 section). Also, you seem to have mistaken my IDHT comment, it's that you say the same thing again and again as if no one ever addressed the same things with you before.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Relatively few pages" easily translates into a paragraph for this article. I strongly disagree with the robotic approach to determining weight. It should also be determined on historical grounds. As I've pointed out, other sources used in the Grant biography covers the topic more than McFeely and Simpson. Sarna devotes an entire book to the subject. Because it's difficult to dismiss the event in terms of history it seems by necessity you're attempting to do so with a 'slide rule'. This is a talk page. Consensus determines what goes into the Article -- editors are still free to talk about article improvement. Cm' has presented some good insights regarding Grant's father and dates. No one is forcing you to participate in that or any discussion, and it's becoming a bit rife watching you become so exasperated and ill spoken over a simple issue. Lighten up. No one is going to edit anything without consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- As as been said before, there was already a fine paragraph in this article on GO11 that the consensus of the FA process found in compliance with Wikipedia policy. As Yopienso, Coemegnus and I have said adding of more details gives undue weight. You disagree with the FA consensus, but as has been stated before, Coemgenus and I do not (although we have compromised much more than we think we should), and Cmguy (Coemgnus and I) have said the details and sources discussions should go to the subsidiary article. As for your personal observations, you are simply wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- You have now invited Coemgenus and me to leave the talk page because we disagree with you, and that's also wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Once again you simply go way too far. I only maintained that no one is forcing you to participate in the discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: Simon gives the date of the gold shipment letter as December 1. Sarna (2012) devotes a full book to G.O. 11 and represents the lastest research on the subject. Sarna (2012) clearly contends that Grant's order was most likely issued because his father lobbied for Mack and Brothers in mid-December. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- When you say "Simon", that is the catalogue of papers, correct? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- John Y. Simon (1984), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, page 51, Vol. 7 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Simon states that the letter concerning gold shipments came to the War Department on December 1, 1862. Grant's G.O. 11 came out on December 17, 1862...That is a 16 day time difference...The gold shipment did not have a direct association to Grant's G.O. 11 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's probably taking it bit far. As I said, the arrival of Ulysses' father Jesse & Co. at Grant's HQ in Holy Springs, gave added impetus for Grant to go ahead with the order, assuming the man was human. It would be a big assumption to think Grant made an order against all Jews in the territory on the basis of this singular incident. As far as I know, none of Grant's biographers have made such a one sided claim. That's not to say the arrival of his father was taken lightly. I'm sure it had major implications given that Mack & Brothers of Memphis were doing business with southern cotton long before the Civil War. Why didn't Grant make the order immediately following the warning from the War Dept? (He was also warned and heard numerous complaints from officers and others) It could be for any number of reasons. Maybe they were waiting for at least one gold shipment to arrive to see where it was headed. That's often Standard OP -- follow the money. Who knows? We can't say. But I wouldn't dismiss the prospect of all this gold greatly funding the rebel war interest. I'm sure Grant and the War Department didn't. I don't dismiss Sarna's work, it's a reliable source which draws on many of the same sources Grant's biographers have. When consensus allows, Grant's father should be mentioned also. At this point it should be apparent that the G.O subject (i.e.more than just a topic) has more weight that some have assumed. Some biographers have covered it much better than McFeely. Sarna wrote an entire book on the subject. That by itself says a lot, and not surprisingly considering all that was involved, from Lincoln on down. Publications that devote themselves to a single subject are RS's, and Sarna's work belongs in the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- You probably already know my response, but just in case, no one has ever denied that whole books and articles can and have been written, indeed, we have pointed to a whole article on it in Wikipedia, but, here, we have written a Featured Article on his whole life -- one that has regularly been criticized as too lengthy - Wikipedian's speculation about Grant's prospects tends to increase article section's lengths (not to mention the length of talk pages) and does not belong in articles anyway. Coemgenus and I think that we had already covered the summary points in the FA, and to the extent there is any doubt about that, we have compromised more than we think we should. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, page length was an issue, but once again, only a couple of FAC reviewers mentioned concern, only, for that guideline, while most other supporters didn't even mention it. Page length is a consideration, but no one wants to pile on the G.O. topic-paragraph with numerous additional sentences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Potential compromise sentence
- Simon (1984) page 52 states the following:
- General Orders No. 11 represented the culmination of USG's efforts to regulate the cotton trade in his dept. to the advantage of his army.
- Rather then put in reasons for the order put in a sentence that G.O. 11 represented Grant's efforts to what Grant believed would achieve a strategic military advantage over the Confederates. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will not get out in front of Coemgenus on this, but I want you to know I am not ignoring you, and you probably already know my arguments. If I may ask you a question, can you see a compromise where we retain the FA version but decrease the text of the current? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- insert : @Alanscottwalker, Coemgenus, and Cmguy777: -- Please with the FA version, it is not carved in granite. Much was overlooked during FAC and I'm not the only one who expressed reservations about the review process altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The current version is good and neutral...Why go back to a version that is in my opinion less neutral? I provided an reliable Simon (1984) source and gave the exact wording from the source for discussion. Rather then put in information concerning the gold shipment, as Gwillhickers requested, summarize that G.O. 11 represented what Grant believed would give his army an advantage over the Confederates. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misapprehend my question, I am asking about a compromise between the amount of text in the FA version and the current (building out on the FA text, but editing down on the current version). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think editing down on the current version would decrease the neutrality...This is a controversial subject...a whole book Sarna (2012) was written on the order...Yes...Much of the expansion should be done in the G.O. 11 article rather then the Grant summary article...Simon (2012) believed Grant was acting from a military view to get what Grant believed would be to his army's military advantage. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought the FAC version was written from a neutral point of view. Do you disagree? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
We've been through this, but that's okay, for the sake of newcomers to the discussion. The FAC version only offered Smith's perspective, and there was nothing about how Grant felt overall, per his apology to Jewish community leaders. As I said, the G.O. issue has more weight than some have assumed, considering all that was involved -- an issue that not only reflects on Grant militarily, but personally, and which involved collaborators, gold, the approach to Vicksburg, the rebel war effort, Lincoln, the War dept, Grant's father, Mack & Co. and also an issue that followed Grant all the way to his presidency. As I've maintained, FA's should well cover all important topics comprehensively (a 'policy' that seems to have been rejected too often) and of course in summary fashion, however, the current version is little more than one might find in a dictionary of Civil War events. Now you want to revert it all back. Unbelievable. And some wonder why the talk goes on. If it is acceptable to Coemgenus and/or Cm' we should consult opinions of other involved and/or knowledgeable editors because the lot of us seem to have accomplished little here. Yes, we have a compromise version, but unfortunately it's missing a couple of items which no doubt are mostly responsible for Grant's order. i.e.large gold shipments funding the rebel war effort and the arrival of Grant's father with speculators at his HQ when Grant was at the brink of another major battle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which other editors do you wish to consult? I suggested mediation because I didn't want to ask someone and then be accused of selecting that editor based on knowing that he'd agree with me, etc. Let's avoid that problem and ask a neutral party to mediate. That seems the fairest way to end this. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest consulting @Rjensen, TheVirginiaHistorian, Wehwalt, and Ian Rose: and anyone else you think would be neutral. Again, I've great reservations about dumping this in the lap of someone not familiar with Grant and/or the Civil War. As I said, we should present the current G.O. version at the end of the Shiloh section and simply ask if the inclusion of the War Department's warning to Grant and the arrival of Grant's father & Co. is going to transform the account into something that is given too much weight. I'm sure if you put your thoughts about me aside you could also offer some insightful suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The FAC was neutral but I believe the neutrality of the section needed to be improved...That is why I proposed the compromise sentence...Simon (1984) states that Grant's G.O. 11 was to give Grant's army an advantage over the Confederates according to Grant's view...G.O. 11 was in fact a military order...Grant's job and purpose was to defeat the Confederacy. There is no need to dispute the section in my opinion... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if any of those editors wants to look at the question, I'd ask them their opinion on whether the General Order #11 paragraph should be (a) reverted to the previously agreed upon FAC version, (b) kept as the currently, somewhat expanded version we've now arrived at, (c) expanded still further, or (d) something else. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Something else? What else is there besides choices a, b and c? Remove the topic entirely? Also, "expand" is not very neutral wording, as I've already related. Makes it sounds like we want to inflate the paragraph to proportions that none of us have in mind when all that is being proposed is the inclusion of a couple of very basic facts. We should keep it simple with two choices. i.e. The current version, which we all spent much discussion and time on, or a version with one additional sentence containing the proposed facts. With three or four choices the 'votes' could be spread all over the map with no definitive consensus for any choice and would only complicate matters. Below is the current version with the proposed addition in bold:
- Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. After being warned by the War Dept that large shipments of gold were being brought in by Jewish speculators<Simpson> and when Grant's own father showed up with his Jewish partners seeking permits to trade in cotton,<Sarna> Grant issued General Orders No. 11 on December 17, 1862, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act.
I don't think the paragraph will reach 'critical mass' in terms of weight with this one clarification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone who seeks to adjudicate this is going to have to read much more than that. How any detail played a role in the actual issuing of the order is not clear in the sources. See eg. the sources discussed in [1] [2], as well as read the actual differences in McFeely, Sarna, Simpson, Smith, etc. (see also,[3] [4]) All the while keeping in mind undue weight and that we are to be writing here in summary form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. And why would any editor not want to read all this and wade into this morass of talk page rants? Maybe I'm wrong, and one of those Gwillhickers pinged above will respond. But if none does over the next few days, I believe we should go to mediation. This has already dragged on too long. Will all of you agree to accept mediation? It's probably the least confrontational dispute resolution process. I'd like to try it first, instead of going straight to administrator intervention, but it's a voluntary process. We all have to agree. Can we do that? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- We've hardly even begun and you're already calling discussions "rant" while claiming to want to have a less confrontational process. Please give the process a chance before dumping on it. You are still free to call in other neutral editors if you like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- So will you consent to mediation or not? Your answer is not clear. Yes? No? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you opposed to settling matters here with neutral and knowledgeable editors? As I've said, we've hardly begun and now it appears you're trying to derail the process because one neutral editor agrees with including the above context. Let's see how things go first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, let's see how it plays out over the next couple days. I'm going to step back from this shitstorm and try to enjoy the holiday weekend. If it's not resolved by Monday, we can think about our next steps then. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please try to contain disparaging and vulgar remarks. Many have been busy over the holiday week end, which includes Monday, so please don't try to rush this, esp when all of us here have spent much time trying to resolve this issue, including yourself. There is no rush, and again no one is forcing you to hover over every single discussion and edit that occurs around here, which, btw, has contributed greatly to the amount of time involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
editbreak5
I like the addition. In the first months of the war, more arms were shipped from the north into the Confederacy than through the blockade. I would propose the following language:
Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. While Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, they were banned from trading with Confederates. But speculators bribed federal officers, creating transportation and discipline problems within Grant’s army. The War Department warned that large shipments of gold and other materiel were being brought in by Jewish speculators<Simpson> and Grant's own father joined Jewish partners to seek permits for trade in cotton from him.<Sarna> To address the problem, Grant issued General Orders No. 11 on December 17, 1862, expelling Jews as a class from the area. The Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked, and twenty-one days later Grant rescinded the order and apologized. While it has been called "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history," Another biographer saw Grant's perception as merely that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and success than others.
So the word count would remain nearly the same.... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- As has been discussed previously, according to the sources, more traders were not Jewish, than Jewish. (Your edit argument appears to blame the Jews for arms shipments in the first months of the war, is that what you are arguing?) Nor have you addressed the point that the sources have no common claim on what exactly those two points you elevate played a role. The impression you leave is that the Jews were in fact to blame for it all - bribing etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- TVH, I invite you to the mediation, if you would go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph only states the facts, and here we go again. Are we going to pile on at every juncture with this sort of conjecture, or simply make an attempt to include basic facts and let outside opinion have a say for a change? Your solution is to leave out important facts? While most traders were not Jewish, Grant feared that the worst offenders were, having long time trade relations already in place, and with lots of money/gold with which to do business. Grant's fears were further confirmed when his father showed up with Mack and bro's, big time operators, at his HQ. The passage doesn't say anything the sources don't say, and no one is cherry picking quotes as was done with the FAC version. We've had our say. We need to let others chime in now with their opinions/suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- First of all the compromise I am comfortable with is clear - the current compromise that is alreday in the article. And no, if we add what is proposed. we have to add at least two more factors, that the sources support, that the Jews were a clear, some say extreme, minority, and that Grant's antsemitism was indeed a factor before the issuance of the order . Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then we would also have to say that many Jewish merchants, like Mack and bro's, already had long time trade relations in place and had lot's of money and gold with which to do business as Grant and others feared -- and anti-semitism is already mentioned twice. Is this how things are going to go? Arguing between the usual lot of us before others have offered their consensus? All of us need to back off and give others a chance to have their say before we fill up the discussion with our opinions all over again.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're now making an argument that we should not expand. And no the current version does not mention Grant's antisemitism before the issuance of the order, as for example Simpson does ( and one of the encyclopedia I link above says Mack and Brothers was a "legitimate trader", not an illegitimate trader). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Neither did the FAC version, which only offered Smith's perspective regarding anti-semitism, which of course you were happy with. We need to let others have their say before we drown out any outside and neutral opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The FAC version did not have all this expansion. Smith's quote did not deal in the factors, only the result. Simpson, for example, spends quite a bit of time showing that Grant's writings during this period were anti semitic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I'm willing to let neutral editors have their say now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then let me discuss with TVH, on his proposal and argument, without interjecting (like where he gets "merely" from and the other points I have raised). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Is the misdirecting element only found in the last sentence? I do not want to discount Grant’s anti-semitism. The last sentence could read,
Though Grant's anti-semitic bias is established by others, in this case one biographer attributed the ban to his belief that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and success than others.
Is that faithful to the source, would that answer the objection? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have several concerns. As Historian Harold Holtzer wrote in 2012: "no historian has been able to fully understand — much less justify — why, on Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued his notorious General Orders No. 11 deporting Jewish citizens." [5] Wikipedia cannot present a consensus on factors, which does not exist, as your proposal appears to do - antisemtism, competitors of Jewish traders manipualting Grant, anger at his father, gold that no one knows he ever heard about. etc, etc. (whole books and articles can and are written on it) As Holtzer also writes, "Not all Civil War-era Jews were speculators, peddlers or smugglers, and not all Civil War-era speculators, peddlers and smugglers were Jews. But Americans living through the rebellion — and many crises before and since — often cast blame on the tiny minority that 19th-century Northerners and Southerners often referred to as “the Israelites.” Shocking as it seems, one of the most notorious offenders was the greatest Union hero of the war: Ulysses S. Grant." [6] As multiple accounts point out, any Jews involved in bad acts were vastly outnumbered by others who were not Jews (see eg. [7]}, but the Jews were tagged by anti-Semitism as the greedy and corrupt, all of them. (See eg.[8] We cannot leave the unhistorical impression that it was the Jews fault, and it appears your proposal does. Moreover, even though there was widespread anti semitism, at the time, there was also widespread revulsion at the sweeping order. (see eg, the sources here [9]) We should not minimize that by leaving the impression that the Jews were at fault, and so it's all perfectly understandable - it is not - not to historians. Yes, Simpson makes an argument that Grant perceived the Jews as the problem, so he acted with the order (the source for your last clause) but he also argues, that although Grant later denied it, Grant was antisemetic, and the more we reduce Simpson, to one pharse, the more likely we misrepresent his scholarship. His point is not disagreeing with 'the most anti semitic official action' that Smith makes (your first clause). (Other issues include, that there was no apology, until after the war). Then too, our article must present this quickly in a short paragraph (see wp:summary style and wp:undue) -- we cannot cover it in depth, here (even though it is a very perplexing subject, with many details). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC) (i have to go and I might not be available until Tuesday but thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC))
- @Alanscottwalker and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- The original proposal mentions 'anti-semitism' twice. If anyone wants to expand on that then there is always the dedicated article. ASW, you were happy to keep the FAC version with only Smith's perspective about anti-semitism. When a balancing statement was included, which even mentions anti-semitism, you generically referred to it as "expansion", "too much weight". The proposal offers a broad and balanced perspective. The proposal mentions "as a class", Lincoln's demand for reversal of the Order and that Grant apologized for his "blunder". All we can do is present the most basic facts and not expand on cherry picked items in the misleading capacity ASW has done above, leaving out important perspectives. i.e. Grant's "anti-semitism" was limited to his reference to the speculators. He didn't carry on at length about Jews in general with reference to their race, culture or religion, and saying "Grant's writings during this period were anti-semitic" without such clarification, when all along his main concern was the war effort, is very misleading and plays on modern day, post WWii, notions of anti-semitism, and more than suggests that, in the middle of the war, at the brink of another battle, Grant lashed out at Jews for no other reason. As I've said all along, we must be careful to present this episode more clearly, and including the most basic facts accomplishes this. Below is the original proposal again, as we are getting away from the main objective of the discussion at this point with this preoccupation with anti-semitism, such that it was in Grant's case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. My argument is anti-cherrypicking: "no historian has been able to fully understand — much less justify — why, on Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued his notorious General Orders No. 11 deporting Jewish citizens." [10] Wikipedia cannot present a consensus on factors, which does not exist, as your proposal appears to do". As for Smith, as has been discussed previously, Smith's quote does not discuss the why of the order, it discusses the what - that the order is antisemitic. That the order is antisemitic (ie. anti Jewish) is supported by every source, including Smith, McFeely, Simpson, Sarna, Brands, Holtzer, Shevitz, Urofsky, etc. (Compare that with your gold letter, which does not have that kind of universal back-up). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Insert : Seems if you were actually concerned about cherry picking you wouldn't have complained about clarifying the FAC version, which only contained Smith's comments, and no one else's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I supported the Smith quote because his point that the order is antisemitic (regardless of why it is that way - his quote is not a theory of why, at all, it is an observation of is), which is supported by all the sources - the various theories on why are not supported by all the sources, that's what makes for various theories - none of which, as Holder notes, there is a historical consensus on and we don't have room to get into them, and we cannot and must not represent that there is such consensus on factors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely. Pairing a near-universally accepted statement with a dubious and unsubstantiated theory is not balance, it's WP:FRINGE. I again suggest mediation, as it seems you will not cease arguing for this point of view, even as the rest of the editors here tell you time and again we don't agree. Will you agree to mediation, or must we find a less consensual method of dispute resolution? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- No one is claiming that any one idea was responsible for the Order. As I have maintained, several times now, all we can do is include the basic facts as they are found in RS's. Is there a RS that maintains that Grant's anti-semitism, such that it was, was mostly or completely responsible for the Order? Or would that be considered a fringe position from someone with a very narrow perspective on matters? Again, Grant's anti-semitic remarks were in reference to the speculators and not aimed at the Jewish people and religion. Would appreciate it if we not try to mislead the readers with such a distorted POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Grant's anti-semitic remarks were not aimed at the Jewish people? That's what you're saying now? I don't recall reading that in any reliable source. But you never answered my question: will you agree to submit this dispute to mediation? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Mediation?
@Coemgenus: Neither is there a RS that says Grant acted out of anti-semitism only. This is yet another reason why we need to include basic facts. After we give the proposal a little more time I have no problem with mediation, however, we must submit a balanced proposal, giving fair representation to both sides. Again, I have reservations about dumping this issue into another forum, where people very likely not familiar with Grant and/or the Civil War will be making this decision. Why have you not submitted names of involved/knowledgeable editors for comment? Is it because you're more comfortable with historically uninformed editors who no doubt are more easily goaded with the idea of anti-semitism? Before I give a final answer, I would be interested in seeing how you intend to present this issue to them. It should be very basic and unopinionated. e.g. There is disagreement among editors over the current version: 'xxx', and including the following sentence: 'yyy'. We should simply define the situation as such and sit back and let them decide, without flooding the forum with all the speculation and conjecture that has plagued this page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. How much longer shall this go on? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Typically, I believe we've scared away any further comment. TheVirginaHistorian weighed in, but it appears that's it. I would like to see you offer some knowledgeable editors for comment first, then if it doesn't fly in a few days, we can go to mediation. That would be fair to editors, and more importantly, to the readers, who deserve a balanced account which was not blocked with subjective opinions. e.g."too much weight". Again, we are only adding a sentence that includes a couple of very basic facts, we are not reinventing the wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm already satisfied with the editors you pinged. They've already had a few days to consider it, and haven't responded, though they've been active in the encyclopedia during that time. I agree, we've scared 'em off. So let's get on with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I only pinged four editors because I didn't want to be the only one making the selection. From the start, you offered no others, suggesting you don't want knowledgeable editors determining the outcome. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- You already got the two I would have pinged, Wehwalt and Rjensen. But if you prefer to assume bad faith on my part, that's your right. I'm going to move for mediation. If you want to reject it, do so, and we'll come up with another option. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Coemgenus: -- Mediation is fair and I'll be more than willing to accept their suggestions. Thanks. Please make the request simple and unopinionated and simply let them have their say, aside from answering any of their direct questions. If they need our opinion they can find more than enough of it here. Btw, thanks for not simply telling me to 'take a hike -- you have no consensus', as this is a controversial issue involving a very prominent President who imo deserves the benefit of the doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll file the request in the morning. I'll do my best to present the argument neutrally, but if you disagree with how I put it, I understand that we'll all be able to present our own views. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Could you present the request here first so we don't end up hacking this out and possibly arguing at length at mediation? Like I said, we should present the current version, and then the proposed additions. We can say also some editors feel this is too much weight and misleading, while others feel the inclusion of the proposed facts gives balance and perspective to the topic as its presented. Is this fair to you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Too late! I just finished it before I saw this note. You should get a talk page notification soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Coemgenus: -- (reworded) As neutrality goes it looks okay, but you've given them too many choices that even someone familiar with Grant could get confused with. I would modify it to two choices: The current version, which almost all of us have worked on, and a choice with the additions. I asked you to do this the other day. i.e.Keep it simple. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Original proposal
Current version of the topic with proposed addition in bold:
- Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. After being warned by the War Dept that large shipments of gold were being brought in by Jewish speculators<Simpson> and when Grant's own father showed up with his Jewish partners seeking permits to trade in cotton,<Sarna> Grant issued General Orders No. 11 on December 17, 1862, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act.
- Gwillhickers...your expansion is not telling the reader that the first event "Gold Shipments" took place 16 days prior to Grant's G.O. 11...Also, the second event, Grant's father visiting headquarters, took place the same time Grant's G.O. 11 was issued in mid December. I don't think you are getting editor concensus. My original compromise sentence used Simon (1984) as a reference in that Grant's G.O. 11 was to give what Grant believed would be an advantage to his army. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- My "expansion" refers to both gold shipments, which the War Dept warned of, and the arrival of Grant's father. If you want to cut it any finer than that there, then by all means include the dates, just so long as we present the facts. Assuming that large gold shipments helping the rebel war effort did not factor into Grant's order simply because he waited a bit is speculation. As such, we can only present the basic facts and let readers decide things of this sort for themselves. What are your suggestions for the proposal -- you didn't actually say. Are you suggesting that we remove the fact about the War Dept's warning of gold shipments? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- First, repectfully I believe you, Gwillhickers, could be pushing the envelope for some editors...The expansion is attempting to lead that reader to believe that because of these actions - > this event was caused. We have no idea if Grant got the Gold Shipment message from the War Department...Also G.O. 11 does not even mention a gold shipment or anything conerning his father lobbying for Mack and Brothers Here is what I would put in: Grant's order culminated his efforts to regulated the cotton trade and give the Union army an advantage over the Confederates. reference: Simon (1984) page 52 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- All that is attempted here is the inclusion of two important facts. Can't believe what a mountain some have built out of this. And a general order is just that -- it is not a log of event's that lead up to the order. You're really reaching here, Cm'. Also, we do have an idea that Grant was warned, and the Registry of Letters records such a letter that spurred the warning, and we have reliable sources that refer to both the warning and the Registry of Letters. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cmguy is not reaching, he has a good grasp of the problems with your proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Cmguy here. You're trying to make a point that is not present in the scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- ASW, you need to pay more attention to what is written before you typically fire away. I said Cm' was reaching in regards to his claim that the General Order didn't list the events that lead up to and prompted the Order. Again, we have RS's that claim the War Department warned Grant of gold shipments, an idea some think is inconsequential, and another RS that claims the letter was listed in the Registry of Letters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Inconsequential" or not, it's not a theory that is supported by basically every source, rather, the theory that that letter may have mattered (given all the hedging that is not known about it) is only discussed by one (amid a larger discussion, including of Grant's evident antisemitism, and Grant's extended focus on the Jew) - so therefore it is not "important" for summary purposes, and its elevation into the text is undue weight, and leading to misrepresentation of cause and effect, as well as unhistorical misrepresentation that the Jews were at fault. Alanscottwalker (talk)
More speculation and still more of the same ol' opinion. Readers in general will have an assortment of opinions. As such, we need to include the basic facts and, once again, let them sort out things like Grant's "extended anti-semitism", which was directed at speculators.
Adding a couple of facts in the course of one sentence doesn't transform the passage from a summary into an indepth account. 'Anti-semitism' is mentioned twice and we have items like "as a class", Lincoln's demand for reversal, and Grant's "blunder". On top of that we have sketchy prose that reads "Grant believed..." and "Grant's perception..." as if the problem with speculators was some sort of 'anti-semitic vision', not based on military intelligence, complaints/warnings from other officers, patrol reports, etc. That is hardly a balanced account, summary or no summary. The inclusion of a couple of facts will give perspective to the account. You can't leave out basic facts with a claim that it is "leading to misrepresentation of cause and effect", which is obviously your way of saying that Grant's order was inspired by anti-semitism only, having nothing to do with the war effort. I believe that's a fair assessment of your objective, as all along you've objected to adding anything else, even a balancing comment from Simpson. - Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are wrong entirely. I have never argued for, in the article, nor written in the article, nor previously supported anything in the article that says Grant's own antisemitism is involved - indeed, the FAC version, which everyone (but you) agrees was neutral does not mention Grant's prior and contemporary statements of antisemitism, but if we are going to go into the reasons he may have issued the order, to be true to the sources, we are going to have to add the information about Grant's contemporary statements, showing antisemitism. I would avoid that by keeping the text short and in balance with the rest of the article and the need to cover this briefly, but I will not agree to list the possible factors prior to the order without listing that because it is a misrepresentation of the sources to do so - many more sources discuss Grant's own statements of antisemitism, than they do any letter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- To be true to the sources we should include all the basic facts, leaving out opinion about 'why' Grant issued the order. There is already a "list of possible factors prior to the order", e.g."Grant believed...", but the list in very sketchy and unbalanced with next to no historical context, per the War Dept's warning, the arrival of Grant's father, which Jewish historian Sarna feels is the primary reason for the order. But again, we don't say 'this was the primary reason'. All we do is present the most basic facts and back off, leaving readers to form their own opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes! We should leave the readers to form their own opinions, not tell them ours! --Coemgenus (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, and to do this we should include the basic facts, per RS's. No one here has edited the account telling the readers what to think, but let's not pretend to be naive here. i.e.leaving out important facts could easily effect opinion, as could offering only one comment, as the FAC version once did. While we're at it, you shouldn't block basic facts simply because they may support/detract from a particular view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- You argue based on a single source that the letter is basic fact but the other sources don't have it as a basic fact at all. So Wikipedia cannot claim it as a basic fact. What's basic to almost all sources, however, are Grant's contemporary anti semitic statements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite the policy that supports this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Two RS. One for the War dept, one for the registry of letters. More for you to ignore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- We regularly treat primary and secondary sources on the same thing as one source. More to the point, you want to relate a single sources' discussion, turning it into why Grant issued the order ('cause and effect' as CMguy says - and you would at the same time actively exclude the facts of Grant's contemporaneous antisemitic statements, which practically every sources discusses) and those things, we cannot do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anyhoo, this proposal has failed acceptance under WP:ONUS 3-1, so there is nothing left to do at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Though he offered other suggestions as well, the VirginiaHistorian said he liked the addition. That makes it 3-2. Not a very definitive consensus. And since you and Coemgenus have held hands over virtually everything I have suggested, form the start, unlike anyone else, we should consider the two of you as one vote for purposes of my suggestions, for openers. (1, 2)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- First we were told that Grant's biographers were what the biography should be based on, in an attempt to cast aspersions on Sarna as a RS. An invented rule. Please cite the policy that supports this. Then we were told that if an item is covered in a RS, one of Grant's biographers mind you, that it is not acceptable if this item isn't covered in other biographies. Please cite the policy that supports this. Now you're telling us that a primary source is going to be lumped in with another and counted as one source. Again, please cite the policy that supports this. This spur of the moment rules invention is childish nonsense. The letter is listed in the Registry of Letters, ergo it existed. Simpson also mentions the letter that spurred the War Dept. warning to Grant. You've already admitted that you feel these facts give the "unhistorical impression that it was the Jews fault". This is your impression. You can't leave out basic facts because you feel they may or may not support your particular POV. No one else has done this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- We have cited policy for our objections. You miscount, but as there is no consensus for this proposal it does not go in. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please show us the policy that e.g.tells us a primary source and a secondary source are counted as one source. And you miscount, leaving out TVH's vote. Obviously we have to go to mediation as you have taken an obstructive and rigid stance over the inclusion of one sentence containing only facts, not opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unpersuaded by your miscount, the count specifically on your proposal is 3-1. (TVH offered a different proposal) You don't even recognize we have made multiple compromises, but you continue to insist. Perhaps you don't understand our positions or you misstate them (eg. we don't agree this presentation is just facts, we do not agree the sources show they are basic, at all, we think it skews the narrative (cause-effect), we think it's undue or fringe, we think it is too much weight for a summary minority factor of potential cause for the Order, we think it misrepresents the sources in summary, and is not given context for which we don't think there is proper room in this article, we think good sense which is part of policy means it should not go in -- it's only good sense to not double count primary and secondary, etc.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- TVH's first statement was that he liked the additions, and though he slightly reworded a few sentences, the additions, per gold shipments, etc, are essentially the same, and your attempt to discount this on such flimsy basis further exemplifies the depths you have sunken to during these discussions. As for your take on "we think" -- the only thing you've made clear is that you wish to give as much weight as possible to the idea of anti-semitism prompting Grant's Order. Once again, please cite the policy that says primary sources are not to be counted, moreover, cite a policy that the 'number' of RS's by itself is a factor, rather than the reliable source itself. Simpson is a RS used several times in the article. You can't snipe at particular items simply because they don't support your POV, which remains unfounded, as the concern for gold shipments is consistent with warnings from officers that Jewish speculators were often trading with the enemy and using gold to do so -- unless you prefer to believe that Confederate dealers/operatives selling cotton were happy to be paid in Union currency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Gah. You may believe about me what you like but you are wrong about that. You are also wrong on the substance and policy has been stated over and over again, and we have gone over this again and again, and your arguments and proposal have been rejected, that's just the way it is. You made this proposal twice on this page, and in general terms before that, and each time, it has not gained acceptance (TVH offered a different proposal, which also did not gain acceptance, and he offered an amendment to his proposal, also not accepted -- he did not say your proposal should be the text - he wanted shorter). As the matter is now in mediation, lets just agree to disagree here, and not fill-up this page anymore. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- What's not to believe? Wikipedia is a transparent forum, and your attempt at damage control here along with your ill inspired account of what all other involved editors think is now a matter of record. Once again, TVH said he liked my addition and only made some slight rewording. The account is essentially the same, and your attempt to dismiss it entirely is not very honest. He indeed expressed the idea that additions are needed, as did Cm' who offered suggestions of his own but had reservations based on consensus -- and this will make at least the fourth time that you have offered an obtuse and distorted account of what editors think on my behalf. If you don't want to fill up the page anymore with this sort of thing then please stop it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. To go into the article per ONUS there must be agreement on the exact wording, not a general idea. Three editors are opposed to your exact proposal - you are the only one on the other side on that. Even so, 3-1-1 would mean it would still be rejected. CmGuy recently said this in opposition to your proposal:[11] Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rubbish. You're trying to evade the fact TVH liked the addition of gold shipments and the arrival of Grant's father to the account. Finding the 'exact' wording would have come next. I'm sure if we had more time to connect up with more knowledgeable editors others would have agreed, given the stunted account about the General Order that somehow escaped the notice of reviewers at FAC, as did numerous other items, many simple facts -- missing. Btw, on April 30th, Cm' also said: It seems as if Grant's order was done out of frustration, military interest, and anti-Semitism. More context is needed for the article section. Unfortunately he seems to change his position at times. In any event, your account of "we" remains as something completely without integrity, as is evident by your own hand, and with your blanket objections to the numerous improvements that were pointed out by me -- which evidently is what bothers you the most. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes CmGuy reviewed your precise proposal and rejected it, that's why the agreement must be on precise language. As on May 19 Cmguy said: "For arguement sake let's say Grant did receive information concerning a gold shipment in Tennessee and Kentucky...That was December 1...Grant's order came immediately after his father Jesse visited at headquarters lobbying for Mack and Brothers in mid December. Sarna (2012) believes this was the most likely event that caused Grant to issue the order, rather then the gold shipments. As has been suggested by Coemgenus, this information is best put in the General Orders No. 11 article." Like on May 22 I said : "As as been said before, there was already a fine paragraph in this article on GO11 that the consensus of the FA process found in compliance with Wikipedia policy. As Yopienso, Coemegnus and I have said adding of more details gives undue weight. You disagree with the FA consensus, but as has been stated before, Coemgenus and I do not (although we have compromised much more than we think we should), and Cmguy (Coemgnus and I) have said the details and sources discussions should go to the subsidiary article. As for your personal observations, you are simply wrong." and "Coemgenus and I think that we had already covered the summary points in the FA, and to the extent there is any doubt about that, we have compromised more than we think we should." As for the rest, on May 21 I said: The argument of counting a relatively few pages in biographies in comparison to the whole book was rejected previously by multiple editors, yet you make it again, here, as if that never occurred. You say you accept the text on CO11 and then you demand Coemgenus discuss it more. Coemgnus has been more than forthcoming on what to cut, yet to you, it's like it never happened. Things such as these is what makes Coemgenus desire for mediation all the more prudent. (On a side note, as has been said before, Grant's apologizing belongs in the 1868 election section, where it is covered already long before you started expanding the GO11 section). Also, you seem to have mistaken my IDHT comment, it's that you say the same thing again and again as if no one ever addressed the same things with you before." You are arguing as if TVH would bring you to 3-2, which is still a rejection, regardless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- ASW, you seem to forget that it was I who suggested we consult other opinions first, from knowledgeable editors. When that didn't work I had no problem with mediation, so please don't try to convey the notion that it was I who has been opposed to a more broader consensus. Btw, 3-2 is not a very definitve consensus, and in such cases editors are allowed to seek a more "broader consensus". Re:G.O.#11. The fact that you consider TVH's words as not supportive of the need for more factual context has become typical of the stretches and misrepresentations you have resorted to lately. -- 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- No. Not in the least. It's as if you do not read what I write. "You are arguing as if TVH would bring you to 3-2, which is still a rejection, regardless." That it is still a rejection of your proposal , under WP:ONUS, makes your continuing on and on about it exceedingly silly. Then to, it was Coemgenus that wanted to go to mediation first. Neither of your claims matter, nor contradict my arguments, but you just make them anyway, with your uncivil personalization claims thrown in. You just need to stop. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're simply rehashing your same senseless words. Obviously we need a broader and more objective consensus. Have a nice day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that this entire section "somehow escaped the notice of reviewers" is ridiculous. Reviewers read the entire article with increasing scrutiny at GA, A-class, and FA. No one objected to it being too short because no one besides you ever thought so. No one missed anything. We all just disagree with you. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, if that were actually so there wouldn't have been so (very) many basic and definitive facts missing. There are other editors that also feel that too much attention is given to formatting, etc, and very little given to the historical narrative for the simple fact that reviewers are too often not knowledgeable of the subject. Case in point, Grant's swearing in wasn't even mentioned, or his association with Lee during the Mexican War, a major chapter in Grant's life, which still remains without a subsection. i.e.not in accord to coverage by modern scholarship. All basic and definitive items. Must we go through the list yet again? Please don't get me wrong. Overall, contributing editors have done great work, but they are not perfect, and neither are reviewers. And waving the FA flag around by itself is not an excuse to ignore the need for improvements. Since FAC, you have not pointed to the need for any improvements on your own initiative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Coeemgenus said, we disagree with you about the FAC section (ie., the FAC section was fine and appropriate) so your response makes no sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are many points to my response, and as usual, your broad brushed and rather reckless statement here ignores it all, and runs par with other such responses and makes no sense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Statements have been moved to mediation)
Statement by Gwillhickers
Statement moved to mediation page.
- As I understand it, the place for these statements is on the mediation page. Have you read what Keith wrote there? Yours is the only acknowledgment we're lacking. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. I'll copy my statement to there. Others should make their positions clear and get them posted at mediation asap I would think. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by YoPienso
I think Alan is right that this is inappropriate, but I'm moving the comment I struck at mediation to this questionable venue and am editing it per Gwillhickers' comment here.
- Mediation is needed because Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus want to follow the abundant reliable sources that attest
to Grant's anti-semitic mindset when he issued, that Grant's G.O. #11 was anti-semitic in tone, while Gwillhickers perceives their desire to include the fact as a desire to smear Grant. My perception of this long-running debate is that ASW and Coemgenus are matter-of-factly telling what happened and that Gwillhickers is trying to defend Grant's honor. YoPienso (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The current text does not imply that "Grant was some sort of enemy of the Jewish people." It specifically notes, "Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized," and the linked article explains the situation clearly. YoPienso (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and what else does it say, and what else does it not say? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I'm involved in this article, not the mediation. Keithbob wrote, "This is a place for moderated discussion about content issues. We are not here to discuss anyone's past or present behavior or their personality, tendencies or alleged bias." Since I see Gwillhickers' research method and editing style as the main problems, I cannot participate there. I've just about stopped here, too; it's just not worth the hassle. (See my comments on this page for a similar story.) YoPienso (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is the place for statements from involved editors. You don't want to "hassle" with the subject but have plenty of steam to carry on about my activity. Typical. You striked your inappropriate comments on the mediation page, which can still be read anyways, btw, and come here and make further inappropriate and generic comments about my "research method and editing style" -- and the dated noticeboard affair you linked to where you and a couple of others made an underhanded attempt to play the race card resulted in no action taken. Yet another attempt to shoot the messenger rather than square off with the message. And you've still made no statement in this section, or anywhere, regarding your overall position. We should not saddle the mediators, who are giving us their time and effort, with peevish grudges we haven't gotten over of, still, and simply make our positions clear regarding the topic. Thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please feel free to remove my comments from the mediation page. The only reason I didn't was because I didn't feel free to also remove your response.
- I have no peevish grudges, but you still use the same research methods and editing style at Grant as you did at Jefferson. I'm sure you sincerely don't realize how counterproductive they can be. You're welcome and best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay then, best wishes to you also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Cmguy777
In my opinion, the general research is that Grant and possibly others in the Union Army held anti-semitic views. The desperate situation of the Civil War and the cotton trade only exacerbated the issue leading to Grant's G.O. 11. Jewish families were dispersed and Grant's order was rescinded by Grant 21 days later upon Lincoln's demand. This was a real event that took place on American (Union-Confederate) soil. The real question is why Grant issued the order. This falls into speculation i.e. Grant's father visiting him at his headquarter lobbying for Mack & Brothers, or a gold shipments into Kentucky and Tennessee in Grant's department. Was Grant angry because McClerland his rival was going to receive troops rather then Grant? Grant did not specifically state, rather, he stated that Jews were violating every ordincance from the Treasury Department. No examples of violation were given. Did Grant hold anti-semitic views specifically ? As a General Grant was trying to win a war and he detested the cotton trade believing it only funded the Confederate War effort. Biographers McFeely (1981) and Smith (2001) both believe Grant held anti-semitic views. Brands (2012) is the most neutral on the subject. I am not against expansion per say, but I don't think the paragraph should expanded only with speculations. I am for expanding the G.O. 11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cm' I'm not in entire agreement here, but well said. I moved my statement to mediation. After you (hopefully) do the same, I'll put this section under a hat where it belongs. If Yp or anyone else want's to vent frustrations they can start their own section and have all the fun they want. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
|
